Appeal No. 2004-0297
Application No. 09/265,451
Claim 78
Claim 78 depends from claim 77 and requires the receipt to
include a user authorization. Since the applied references,
including the portions of Hale specified by the examiner, do not
teach, and would not have suggested, this subject matter, we
shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 78 as being unpatentable over Tamada in view of Danielson
and Hale.
Claim 71
Claim 71 is an independent claim which recites a pocket-
sized device similar to that recited in independent claim 48.
The appellant contends that the rejection of this claim is
unsound because the applied references, and particularly Tamada,
do not teach or suggest a device meeting the limitation in the
claim requiring a communication circuit adapted to conduct
electronic transactions with a merchant. For the reasons
discussed above in connection with claim 48, such argument is not
convincing. Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 71 as being unpatentable over Tamada
in view of Danielson and Hale.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007